COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
CLAIMS INDEFINITE: Essential Characteristic Not Stated.
Some claims failed to state the relationship of the components
of the absorption refrigeration apparatus essential to resolve the
problem that constitutes the alleged advance in the art. Other
claims were deemed allowable.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed in-part.
********************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated September 22, 1972
on application 078,614. This application was filed on March 31,
1970 in the names of Jack D. Meess, John C. Kastovich and Robert
S. Lackey, and refers to an "Absorption Refrigeration System".
In the prosecution terminated by the Final Action the examiner
rejected claims 1, 2, 11 to 14 and 22 to 24 for failing to define
any invention over the prior art. Claims 15 to 19 were rejected
on the basis that they do not depart from the conventional re-
frigeration circuits as discussed in the disclosure of this
application.
The examiner cited the following prior art:
United States Patents:
2,243,903 June 3, 1941 Cl. 62-119.5 Hintze
2,979,310 Apr. 11, 1961 Cl. 257-247 Nicholson
2,974,498 Mar. 14, 1961 Cl. 62-156 Ehrenfreund
2,900,807 Aug. 25, 1959 Cl. 62-277 Solley Jr.
This application refers to an absorption refrigeration system
formed in substantially its entirety from at least two super-
imposed sheets bonded together at their interfaces, except for
the portions defining operating components and interconnecting
passages. These passages are in outwardly expanded or embossed
form. Claims 1 and 15 which are representive of the sets of
rejected claims read:
1. In an inert gas type, absorption refrigeration apparatus,
a tube-in-sheet panel containing a working fluid to which a
source of heat is adapted to be applied to effect operation
of said apparatus, said panel comprising the entirety of the
apparatus in the sense of providing a complete flaw system
including refrigeration contributing components and inter-
connecting fluid passages, save for said source of heat,
said panel being constructed and arranged that as formed
all said components and all said passages lie in the general
plane of said panel.
15. A tube-in-sheet panel containing a working fluid, the
panel constituting the entirety of the flow system of an
absorption refrigeration system save for a source of heat
to effect operation of said system, the panel being of
generally rectangular outline and adapted to occupy a
sufficiently upright plane during operation to accommodate
the requisite gravity flow in the system, all of the
refrigeration contributing components and connecting
passages being in communication internally of said panel,
said panel including one area thereof having, in descending
order, a condenser, evaporator, gas heat exchanger, absorber,
receiver, and liquid heat exchanger, said panel further including
another area on the general level of said absorber and reservoir
and to the side thereof having a boiler and lift section, said
components and passages including; and inert gas feed passage
extending from the upper portion of the absorber to the inlet
of said evaporator, and evaporator exit passage connecting
the outlet of said evaporator with the lower portion of
said absorber, said inert gas feed passage and said evaporator
exit passage extending in counterflow, adjacent heat exchange
relation for a portion of their length to form said gas heat
exchanger section, a rich liquid passage extending from the
lower portion of said reservoir to the lower portion of said
boiler and lift section, a weak liquid extending from the
lower portion of said boiler and lift section to the upper
portion of said absorber, said rich liquid passage and said
weak liquid passage extending in counterflow, adjacent heat
exchange relation for a portion of their length to form said
liquid heat exchanger, all of said components and passages
lying in the general plane of said panel as formed.
In the Final Action the examiner stated in part:
Hintze teaches the formation of an absorption refrigeration
apparatus in which vessels and conduits are formed of indented
and corrugated metal sheets arranged in pairs and hermetically
sealed.
...
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 11-14 and 22-24 is maintained
and the reasons for such rejection are that these claims fail
to define any inventive, clearly defined unobvious step over
Hintze in view of common knowledge evidenced by the other
references and expected skill.
...
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14 and 22-24 in setting forth that the
entirety of the apparatus is formed, save for the heat source,
between facing sheets forming a tube-in-sheet panel are held
to be merely restating the problem to be overcome in terms
of a desired result rather than setting forth those elements
of structure which clearly show how the problem is overcome.
Roll bonded units are generally common knowledge (See
Ehrenfreund and Solley Jr.) and to incorporate them into
an absorption unit is held to be but expected skill.
Nicholson shows the features brought out by claims 11 and
12. To incorporate such features into a roll bonded arrange-
ment is held to be obvious and thus does not offer an inventive
step over Hintze in view of common knowledge. Nicholson, as
noted above shows the features of a three element construction
with an opening in the intermediate sheet interconnecting
passages on either side thereof.
...
Upon further examination it is found that claims 15, 16, 17,
18 and 19 are not patentable and therefore these claims also
stand rejected.
...
They are presently held rejected since they do not depart from
the conventional refrigerator circuits as noted by applicant
at page 8 lines 23-25 and page 9 line 28-page 10, line 11. The
only departure is in the formation of a tube-in-sheet panel, and
as noted in the rejection of claim 1 such a distinction is not
a patentable one. Further, considering claim 17, Hintze shows
cut outs similar to those of claim 17 at A, B, C and D.
The applicant, in two separate responses both dated December 19,
stated in part:
In regard to the first set of claims:
The applicant fully realizes that roll bonded sheets are not
new. In the specification, on page 1, it is stated:
"It is well known to make heat exchange units from metal
sheets processed and bonded in facing relation with a
pattern of passages (typically inflated) provided between
the sheets. The use of a panel of this general character
in an absorption refrigeration system has also been
suggested in the patent art as evidenced by U.S. patent
2,243,903.".
...
"That patent (2,243,903) deals with a tube-in-sheet type
of absorption refrigeration apparatus which purports to
comprise a complete absorption refrigerating apparatus
in which the entire system is formed by the depressions
of the metal sheets arranged face to face together. It
is said that in that manner all or the majority of the
vessels may be made of very few metal sheets. The result
according to the patent is especially favorable for the
mass production of absorption refrigerating apparatus.
However, the arrangement according to that patent is
deficient, as contrasted to the present invention, in
requiring certain auxiliary parts such as a pump and
certain connecting conduits which must be separately
manufactured and connected with the vessels and
passageways formed of the metal sheets."
...
The applicants invention is not obvious from Hintze.
Hintze discloses the desirability of reducing the
number of parts required to product an absorption
refrigeration apparatus. Hintze certainly has not
disclosed a complete system formed entirely in the
tube-in-sheet panel. He has merely reduced the number
of parts required to produce an absorption refrigeration
apparatus by including some of the elements in a tube-
in-sheet panel and then connecting the remaining elements
required to produce a functioning system. The elements,
such as the pump 50 and the connecting tube 13 and other
crossovers shown in Fig. 1 of the cited reference must
all be welded to the tube-in-sheet panel before the
refrigeration apparatus of Hintze will function.
In regard to the second set of claims:
In the apparatus of Hintze the components require a three
dimensional spacial arrangement, whereas the applicants
apparatus requires only a two dimensional spacial
arrangement as formed.
By this the applicant means that Hintze has not solved
the problem of how to reduce the conventional flow
patterns of an absorption refrigeration system from
a three dimensional representation as occurs when the
system is built up using discrete components which may
include some portions fabricated in a tube-in-sheet
panel and allows for crossovers in connecting tubes
and allows the components to be placed in the most
advantageous position with respect to one another and
to be connected by the connecting tubes, to a planar
or two dimensional representation in which all of the
elements are formed in the sheet and therefore lie in
one plane as formed. Because Hintze did not solve the
problem of reducing the conventional flow patterns from
a three dimensional form to a two dimensional form and
and because he did not solve the problem of providing
a tube-in-sheet panel which would have adequate
circulation without the use of external pumping means,
Hintze was forced to use additional connecting tubes
and crossovers as well as the pump 50, all of which
had to be welded to the tube-in-sheet panel.
The first question to be decided is whether claims 1, 2, 11 to 14
and 22 to 24 are patentable over the cited references.
The Hintze reference discloses an absorption refrigeration apparatus
which includes a tube-in-sheet panel containing a working fluid, to
which a source of heat is adapted to operate the apparatus. Claim 2
of this reference reads:
An absorption refrigerating apparatus of the continous type
comprising a single pair of metal sheets sealed face to face
together and having indentations and corrugations forming a
generator vessel, a gas separator vessel, condenser, an
absorber, an evaporator, and interconnecting conduits
arranged so as to form a circulation system, part of said
conduits being arranged in heat-exchanging relationship with
one another.
The Nicholson reference shows a three sheet heat exchanger with
openings in the inner sheet, and connecting passages on either
side thereof, while the references to Ehrenfreund and Solly each
show roll-bonded heat exchanger units.
Claim 1 defines the following structure:
(a) in an inert gas type, absorption refrigeration apparatus;
(b) a tube-in-sheet panel containing a working fluid and
a source of heat for the operation of said apparatus;
(c) said panel comprising the entirety of the apparatus
in the sense of providing a complete flow system
including refrigeration contributing components, some
for said source of heat, and interconnecting fluid
passages; and
(d) said panel being constructed and arranged that as formed
all said components and all said passages lie in the
general plane of said panel.
While it is conceded that the applicant does not require a pump for
the operation of his system as does Hintze, the basic difference
from the Hintze reference is that conduits 13, 19 and 51 inter-
connects the passages externally while all the passages are
included in the panel of the present application. It is known,
however, to form passages using a tube-in-sheet panel. Any
extension therefore to include all the passages in a panel, is
only an obvious modification from what is already common general
knowledge.
On page 1 of the disclosure the applicant states that: "The main
problem arising in providing a tube-in-sheet absorption refrigeration
system which is embodied in its entirety, insofar as its internal
components and passages are concerned, in a planar panel as formed,
is that the system design must be developed from what is essentially
a two dimensional schematic pattern of the absorption refrigeration
cycle. In other words, the physical location and relationships of
the various basic components of the absorption apparatus (condenser,
evaporator, absorber and boiler) are located as though the system
represented a flow diagram with gravity feed characteristics."
Claim 1 does not define the essential physical location and relation-
ship of the various basic components of the absorption apparatus
(condenser, evaporator, absorber and boiler) which according to the
applicant, is the main problem to be solved for the system represented
by a flow diagram with gravity feed characteristics. A claim may not
distinguish from the Hintze reference and common general knowledge
and practice merely by indicating the desired result, or simply
restating the problem. The claim, to be patentable, must define
a mode of application essential to the operation and use of a new
principle or idea. We are satisfied that claim 1 does not properly
define the alleged advance in the art.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, states that the tube-in-sheet
panel consists of two initially separate sheets bonded together
during formation of said panel. The structure of Hintze, Ehrenfreund
and Solly are all formed in the manner recited in claim 2.
Claim 11, which is dependent on claim 1, states that the tube-in-
sheet panel consists of three separate sheets, and that the
opposite outer sheets each include outwardly-bulging portions
forming said components and passages. It further states that the
intermediate sheet includes selectively located openings to place
selected components and passages on opposite sides of said intermediate
sheet in communication. This particular type of structure is specifically
shown by numerals 11, 12, 13, 14, 44, 45 and 46 in figure 4 of the
Nicholson reference.
Claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, states that an apparatus
which includes a gas heat exchanger and a liquid heat exchanger
is incorporated into the panel, and that at least one of said heat
exchangers is formed of passages which are located substantially
directly opposite each other on opposite sides of the intermediate
sheet. The gas heat exchanger and the liquid heat exchanger are
shown in the Hintze reference, whereas figure 4 of the Solly
reference shows the arrangement of the two conduits on opposite
sides of an intermediate sheet.
Claims 13 and 14 are directed to substantially the same subject
matter as claimed in claim 1, except that the components and
passages are formed of outwardly-bulging embossments in at least
one of said sheets. The references to Hintze and Nicholson describe
structure of this type.
It is noted that dependent claims 22, 23 and 24 add an external heat
transfer promoting means. The Hintze reference, however, provides
this arrangement at 1 in figure 1.
In summation, we are satisfied that claims 1, 2, 11 to 14 and 22 to
24, as presented, fail to define the alleged advance in the art for
the reasons stated, and for relaying to what constitutes a conventional
refrigeration system.
The second question to be decided is whether claims 15 to 19 are
patentable over and above the applicant's own description of what
constitutes a conventional refrigeration circuit.
In the Final Action the examiner referred to the following state-
ments found in the applicant's disclosure:
On page 8 beginning at line 23,
These circulating paths for the components of the solution
are conventional for any ammonia absorption system utiliz-
ing an inert gas.
And on page 9 beginning at line 28,
As has been noted, the circulation patterns and the general
operational mode of the panel system according to the
invention corresponds to that of the conventional inert
gas type systems.
The disclosure of this application reads in part:
On page 1 beginning at line 13,
It is well known to make heat exchange units from metal
sheets processed and bonded in facing relation with a
pattern of passages (typically inflated) provided between
the sheets. The use of a panel of this general character
in an absorption refrigeration system has also been
suggested in the patent art as evidenced by U.S. patent
2,243,903. That patent deals with a tube-in-sheet type
of absorption refrigeration apparatus which purports to
comprise a complete absorption refrigerating apparatus in
which the entire system is formed by the depressions of the
metal sheets arranged face to face together. It is said
that in that manner all or the majority of the vessels may
be made of very few metal sheets. The result according to
the patent is especially favorable for the mass production
of absorption refrigerating apparatus. However, the arrange-
ment according to that patent is deficient, as contrasted to
the present invention, in requiring certain auxiliary parts
such as a pump and certain connecting conduits which must be
separately manufactured and connected with the vessels and
passageways formed of the metal sheets.
On page 2 beginning at line 21,
... In other words, the physical location and relationships
of the various basic components of the absorption apparatus
(condenser, evaporator, absorber and boiler) are located as
though the system represented a flow diagram with gravity feed
characteristics.
And on page 9 beginning at line 31,
However, the provision of the system as a whole in generally
planar form for fabrication purposes, the omission of operating
components (such as pumps) connected to the internals of the
system, the size limitation imposed by present fabrication
techniques for tube-in-sheet panels, and the requirements of
obtaining reasonably satisfactory performace of the system,
pose substantial problems in the design of the system as a
whole.
In accordance with the above statements it is established that the
applicant was familiar with conventional absorption refrigeration
systems. He was also familiar with the teachings of United States
patent 2,243,903, the Hintze reference, which has been relied
on extensively to reject claims. These statements also suggest
improvements to existing prior art refrigeration systems.
Claim 15 defines the physical location and relationships of the
various basic components, and introduces the following limitations:
(a) the panel is adapted to occupy a sufficiently upright
plane during operation to accommodate the requisite
gravity flow in the system;
(b) the panel includes one area having in descending order,
a condenser, an evaporator, a gas heat exchanger, an
absorber, a receiver, a liquid heat exchanger, a boiler
and a lift section located in an area to the side of
the absorber and receiver;
(c) the panel includes an inert gas feed passage extending
from the upper portion of the absorber to the inlet
of the evaporator, an evaporator exit passage
connecting the outlet of the evaporator with the lower
portion of the absorber, the passages extending in
counterflow heat exchange relationship, and
(d) the panel also includes a rich liquid passage extending
from the lower portion of the reservoir to the lower
portion of the boiler, a weak liquid passage extending
from the lower portion of the boiler to the upper
portion of the absorber, the passage extending in
counterflow heat exchange relationship.
In our view the subject matter of claim 15 distinguishes from the
description given in the disclosure of what constitutes a conventional
refrigeration system. Claims 16 to 19 also avoid the objection made
in the Final Action, since they are dependent on claim 15.
The examiner also pointed out that the cancellation of the rejected
claims would raise an objection under Section 60 of the Patent Rules
and Section 38 of the Patent Act. In the opinion of the Board,
however, an amendment to claims 1, 13 and 14 would overcome all
objections, if such amendment properly defined the essential physical
location and relationship of the various components of the absorption
apparatus, for example, as defined in claim 15.
In summary, the Board is satisifed that claims 1, 2, 11 to 14 and
22 to 24, as presently presented, do not define the alleged advance
in the art over the cited references and common practice, but that
claims 15 to 19 are acceptable over the state of the art as dis-
closed in the specification.
The Board recommends therefore that the refusal of claims 1, 2, 11 to
14 and 22 to 24 be affirmed, and that claims 15 to 19 be accepted.
J.F. Hughes,
Assistant Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly I
refuse to grant a patent which includes claims 1, 2, 11 to 14 and 22
to 24, but will accept claims 15 to 19. The applicant has six months
to present an appropriate amendment deleting claims 1, 2, 11 to 14 and
22 to 24, or to appeal this decision under the provision of Section 44
of the Patent Act.
Decision accordingly,
A.M. Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents.
Dated in Hull, Quebec,
this 20th day of November, 1973.
Agent for Applicant
McConnel & Fox,
Hamilton, Ontario.